Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
blame game that drew the president's ire, defending susan rice after comments by republican senators john mccain and lindsey graham that they would oppose her nomination to be secretary of state based on remarks she made about the benghazi attacks. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to besmerch her reputation is outrageous. >> indeed. let's get to our panel julian epstein, lynn sweet, washington bureau sweet for chicago "sun-times" and msnbc political analyst professor michael eric dyson of georgetown university. professor dyson,fy might begin with you, perhaps the most hated moment in that press conference was the president's barely concealed anger that republicans have been attacking ambassador susan rice for the confusion surrounding the benghazi consulate attacks. this, as you know, has been the drum beat from republicans from the right wing media for
the whole white house. take a listen. >> so when the president says that susan rice was giving out -- talking about the most updated and -- fully documented intelligence that the intelligence community had, that's not true. >> last night the message was that susan rice was disseminating incorrect intelligence and the president is wrong for defending her. now here is mr. king today after an intelligence briefing. >> did he seem concerned that things had been changed? was that surprising to you? >> he seemed to say at the time they didn't realize the full significance of that and that or an unclassified statement it was acceptable. again, it's still very vague. >> petraeus told king today that, quote, for an unclassified statement this was acceptable. again, it's still very vague. dana, to paraphrase the president, republicans got out in front of their own skis on this one, didn't they? >> yes. well, in congress they have a tradition of revising and extending their remarks and i think peter king -- what peter king just said was "never mind." >> what he said earlier, what do we do wit
. but the person who is really taking the heat for that is our u.n. ambassador susan rice. you know, obviously there's been a lot of criticism of her. i think there's been a lot of attempts to make it clear she did exactly what anybody in her position would have done, with those talking points, given the situation we were in on that sunday when she went on the sunday shows. you know, some of the members of the congressional black caucus have raised the question, you know, would republicans be -- using a different tone if the ambassador -- the u.n. ambassador was white? here was senator graham's response. i want to play that and then let's talk about it. >> guys like you are being criticized by, for instance, members much the congressional black caucus, they say that you and john mccain are sexist and racists as well for criticizing ambassador rice. >> well, when you can't answer the question, you attack the questioner. the only color i'm worried about when it comes to benghazi is red, blood red. >> you know, congresswoman, i'll tell you what strikes me is i'm a little cautious about getting in
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)